The Scottish Government

This document is also available in PDF format.

Chapter 2 - Responses

2.1 This chapter will analyse the range of respondents to the fees summary. The respondents are broken down into five groups: local authorities, companies, individuals, other government departments and trade bodies. The chapter will break down the number of responses received from each group compared to the initial consultation list.

Groups

2.2 Each of the groups can be defined as follows:

Local Authorities: This includes responses from local authority planning departments, individual councillors and CoSLA.

Industry: Includes responses from power station developers, consultants and transmission companies.

Individuals: Self explanatory, individuals who have responded to the consultation due to some degree of personal interest.

Trade bodies: Organisations which represent a collection of companies in a specific industry.

Other government departments: includes Non Government Departmental Bodies (NGDPBs) and government agencies.

2.3 The complete distribution list for the consultation is presented in Annex B. The complete list of respondents is presented in Annex C.

Distribution of consultation by interest group and sector

2.4 There was a total of 26 responses to the consultation on fees payable for consent under the Electricity (applications for consent) Scotland Regulations 1990. These responses are split as: local authorities (14), companies (6), trade bodies (3), other government departments (2) and individuals (1). The table below displays distribution of return by the interest group.

Responses to consultation by interest group

2.5 The table below outlines the responses by interest group and as a percentage of those who were invited to respond to the consultation. This gives an idea of how successfully each group engaged with the consultation exercise.

Responses by group/sector

Local Authorities

1.1 The response from local authorities (43.8%) can be considered good. Not all authorities are affected by power station, especially wind farm, developments to the same level, so it should be expected that not all would have responded. 1.1 It is also worth noting that CoSLA, who are the umbrella body for local government, responded to this exercise. The results also contain a reply from an individual councillor.

Industry

1.2 The fact that only 26% of industry invited to respond did so can be considered disappointing. It may be the case that individual companies were content on trade bodies replying in their name; the renewables sector in Scotland has a particularly active trade association, the Scottish Renewables Forum, who did respond.

Trade bodies

1.3 There was an excellent response rate of 75% from trade bodies. However, several of those who responded were not on the distribution list. Respondents were the Scottish Renewables Forum, Association of Electricity Producers and Scottish Society of Directors of Planning.

Other government departments

1.4 Statistics indicate a 66% response rate from government departments; however one of the respondents was not on the initial distribution list. Respondents were Scottish Natural Heritage and the Forestry Commission. Both can be considered important stakeholders in the development of energy infrastructure, especially SNH whose guidance is taken into account in planning applications.

Summary

• This chapter presented a profile of those who responded to the consultation on fees payable by applicants under the electricity (applications for consent) Scotland regulations 1990.
• 26 organisations and individuals responded to the consultation and were broken down into 5 groups.
• The best response rate was from local authorities and trade bodies.
• There was a poorer level of response amongst industry but this was partially offset by the trade body response rate.

Executive Summary

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 3: Analysis of Questions

Chapter 4: Conclusion

Annex A: Consultation Paper

Annex B: Distribution List